I just received the following from the NEGHS in my newsletter which I thought would be of interest in this discussion. I guess it's all personal preference but I don't think I would like to read a narrative, even though it's a genealogical history, that would have footnotes on every page. I find it disrupts my reading and also feel that anyone reading some historical account in narrative form would feel the same way. If it were just a factual genealogica history then I guess the following excerpt is considered the "right way" of doing it if there is such a thing.

Excerpt from this week's NEGHS newsletter.

Research Recommendations: Genealogical Writing: Footnotes vs. Endnotes
by Michael J. Leclerc

When writing your family history, documenting your sources is of critical importance. For many beginning authors, the question is whether to use footnotes or endnotes for your work. While historical works generally use endnotes, those writing for genealogists are usually better served with footnotes. Why is this?

* Footnotes allow readers to read the notes without losing your place in the text. Readers do not have to flip pages back and forth; the eye can shift to the bottom of the page and back up.
* Notes for genealogies often include explanatory text in addition to the source citation. This is more easily read with ready access to the original text above.
* When copying sections of compiled genealogies, footnote at the bottom of the page will be included. Endnotes might be lost if the user forgets to copy and include them as well.

In times past some genealogists used embedded notes, set off by square brackets within the text. Depending on where the sources are embedded within the text, this can make prose more difficult to read. Fewer and fewer genealogists use this system any more because of the difficulties it presents, and the ease with which footnotes can be inserted in modern word processing systems.

My personal preference--for short pieces, I like footnotes. For long pieces with lots of notes, I like endnotes because it is really disconcerting to see a page with 10 lines of text and 46 lines of footnotes. Also, if you are using notes for both source documentation and for a greater explanation of some element of your text, I'd use both footnotes and endnotes--the footnotes for the extra explanation, the endnotes for sources. Just use different symbols--number for the more numerous endnotes, asterisks, crosses, alphas, etc for the footnotes.

I'm with you as far as footnotes. I hate endnotes! Some people say footnotes are distracting, but it's my feeling that they can skip them if they want. For people like me, who like to check the references, endnotes are a real nuisance!
I published my family history book last year about this time, and I used footnotes. I haven't heard any complaints about them, although I've had lots of praise for the book (check out my blogsite www.judyroutson.wordpress.com).
Good luck!